Improvement: Main Battle Tank - Chassis Mod - Solution to Driver/Gunner Problem

Zekeen · 2012-05-26, 01:09 AM

So, we've watched as the MBT has been considered one of the hottest topics since they announced that the driver will be the gunner. Half love the ability to shoot what they drive, and half hate the loss of co-operation. But on top of all this, the only solution Devs have created was to maybe allow a mod to let a person drive and another gun, with possibly a bigger gun or such. The problem with this, is that it only increases firepower, and a slight bit of mobility, but is still less powerful than 2 MBTs with a single person.

Thus, here is a new idea to cause a simple change, inspired by the original models of the MBTs from PS1.

Add in a Chassis Mod for MBTs, to allow a bigger, more capable chassis of the same tank. The name stays the same, it's not a new tank per say, but it can support a bit more and require both driver and gunner.

Borrowing a picture from the Epic SOE Memories thread - a Comparison of PS2 and PS1 Vanguard.

Take a look at how the old one was much wider, with a longer barrel. Just imagine the two merged. The same turret, but different Chassis. The old style Chassis would give a larger amount of armor, so it can take more punishment, and it receives a larger, harder hitting barrel with a more more flat shot (this means less drop off, bullet doesn't fall as much).

So, here's how the new Chassis works vs the base type. These all require a driver and gunner as stated.

Heavy Vanguard - Using the old much wider style, it also allows for a much bigger, heavier hitting barrel. This thing does much more damage and is much easier to hit distant targets with. This gives it a much more intimidating stance against lighter tanks, forcing them to use their speed to close in. It is wider and has trouble maneuvering in enclosed spaces.

Heavy Prowler - The new prowler has 3 slots (driver, main gunner, secondary gunner) like the original. But unlike the base model with a double gun, the heavier Driver & Gunner type has a TRIPLE BARREL gun. Rather than alternating, it rotates, like a slow firing Gatling gun, allowing a 50% bonus to attack rate, confusing and oblilerating enemies. It will be a taller tank, like the original.

Heavy Magrider - Gone is the strange front driver cannon, replacing it is a rotating top cannon and 2 forward-fixed driver operated heavy anti infantry pulsar guns. The gunner can use the top gun to take on vehicles while the driver has a much more useful anti infantry weapon, which was always the only real use of the front gun. Now, instead of trying to balance movement and vertical aim onto a target with a slower firing small cannon or such, it's a rapid fire gun to ensure better hit chance!

So, what are the tradeoffs other than having to have a designated driver and gunner? For one, while they all have 150% the base hit points, this doesn't repair at the same speed. It's all relative, meaning that it requires 150% the time to repair. They also have trade offs for their bulk. They are bigger and less agile, but with a designated driver they can make up for it. The Heavy Vanguard is much easier to hit and can't fit in tight spaces, the Heavy Prowler is slightly slowed down, and the Heavy Magrider has much more momentum, making it harder to slow down and stop.

By making it these Heavy Chassis modded Variants, the tank trade off is much more evident and probably more accepted by players.

The only concerns I can see people having for this are:

This makes the base MBT like the Lightning in relation, or makes the Lightning unneeded.

The Lightning is the fasted ground vehicle next to the ATV and is always suited for different roles. The H-MBT merely creates a somewhat better tank than the MBT out of the MBT. The use and style stays the same, but they fill a more tactical role over having two MBT out.

The H-MBT is like the BFRs, a heavy tank, and will ruin the game and remove the need for a MBT.

The H-MBT will only be 150% stronger/more armored. This makes it technically weaker than 2 MBTs. It'll also cost a deal more than an MBT. These things balance it out. The presence of an H-MBT would not be significantly noticed. There are plenty of trade offs but it gives what designated Drivers and Gunners want out of a tank, compared to a solo MBT.

If anyone of you like this idea, just say so, don't be shy. Keep it supported

If you have an issue with it, let me know, maybe I know a solution or maybe you can prove it a bad idea, but don't stay silent. We're trying to make a great game even better!

DDSHADE · 2012-05-26, 03:30 AM

I like this idea, it could give order to the tanks, yet not be too confusing.

I think it would be a good unlockable perk for drivers of tanks, make us original PS vets happy(well, happier :P) and allow for more versatility to our tactics on the field.

So long as the trade offs are fair, I don't see why 2-3 players in tanks should be penalized for working together to take out other tanks manned by only one person.

A problem I forsee is giving these tanks too much more armor than the base model. I think that they should be named differently and be visibly different, clearly a heavy version of the MBT. The HBT's would essentially cost more resources, move slower, and have a significant weakness, enough to keep them in balance.

I don't think the heavy prowler should be as tall or odd looking as the original though. I love those tanks to death (many, many deaths) but I think they should look like the new PS2 prowlers, only even angrier and bigger. I dig the 3 tank cannon gatling idea

I hope this is considered as a good patch idea, or even something for the PS2 test servers to see what the players think!

Zekeen · 2012-05-26, 03:37 AM

Originally Posted by DDSHADE

I like this idea, it could give order to the tanks, yet not be too confusing.

I think it would be a good unlockable perk for drivers of tanks, make us original PS vets happy(well, happier :P) and allow for more versatility to our tactics on the field.

So long as the trade offs are fair, I don't see why 2-3 players in tanks should be penalized for working together to take out other tanks manned by only one person.

A problem I forsee is giving these tanks too much more armor than the base model. I think that they should be named differently and be visibly different, clearly a heavy version of the MBT. The HBT's would essentially cost more resources, move slower, and have a significant weakness, enough to keep them in balance.

I don't think the heavy prowler should be as tall or odd looking as the original though. I love those tanks to death (many, many deaths) but I think they should look like the new PS2 prowlers, only even angrier and bigger. I dig the 3 tank cannon gatling idea

I hope this is considered as a good patch idea, or even something for the PS2 test servers to see what the players think!

Well, rather than being significantly better, as I stated, they would be 50% better, but require 2 people. This is basically 150% vs 200% (1 H-MBT vs 2 MBT). It requires the same number of players, but has less power than said number of players.

I am also suggesting they be a merging of the old and new styles. Looking just like the old ones, but with new twists and edgier designs. A veteran returning without looking at PS1 tanks would think they were the old versions out of memory, despite them looking different.

I don't think this would require too much testing, as I suggested, they wouldn't be so overpowering. The real power of them is how much more powerful they become due to teamwork. Even though they are a bit slower, less agile, and bulkier, with only 150% the firepower and armor of a base MBT, it's the cooperation of driver and gunner that make them far more powerful than 2 MBTs. If you put two greenhorns in it, it'll be less powerful than one MBT. It should be so simple that testing wouldn't eventake much effort.

DDSHADE · 2012-05-26, 04:00 AM

Originally Posted by Zekeen

Well, rather than being significantly better, as I stated, they would be 50% better, but require 2 people. This is basically 150% vs 200% (1 H-MBT vs 2 MBT). It requires the same number of players, but has less power than said number of players.

I am also suggesting they be a merging of the old and new styles. Looking just like the old ones, but with new twists and edgier designs. A veteran returning without looking at PS1 tanks would think they were the old versions out of memory, despite them looking different.

I don't think this would require too much testing, as I suggested, they wouldn't be so overpowering. The real power of them is how much more powerful they become due to teamwork. Even though they are a bit slower, less agile, and bulkier, with only 150% the firepower and armor of a base MBT, it's the cooperation of driver and gunner that make them far more powerful than 2 MBTs. If you put two greenhorns in it, it'll be less powerful than one MBT. It should be so simple that testing wouldn't eventake much effort.

Fair point, I think it would fit fine and balance well - I'd love to see this make its way into PS2

From a design perspective, they wanted to have less vehicles fulfill a wider spectrum of roles than PS1 did. Adding heavy versions of the MBT's wouldn't really effect that ideology, they are simply a more decked out variant of the original chassis. Technically it could keep the same name, as the only real point would be to have a dedicated driver, but adding heavier guns and distinguishing it as a heavy tank class would be pretty badass indeed!

Gonefshn · 2012-05-26, 01:47 PM

A Dedicated Driver with a dedicated gunner is waaaay more effective in battle than a pilot controlled gun. armor bonus is hardly necessary.

Neurotoxin · 2012-05-26, 07:28 PM

Remember, in PS1 it was:
Prowler, 3 seats with 2 weapons - 1 driver, 1 heavy gun, 1 light gun.
Magrider, 2 seats with 2 weapons - 1 driver and light gun, 1 heavy gun
Vanguard, 2 seats with 2 shared weapons - 1 driver, 1 light / heavy gun
Lightning, 1 seat, 2 shared weapons

I'll wait to try what they have already, before asking them to modify it. Personally I enjoyed the front gun on my Magrider, and I'm looking forward to having it beefier than before, especially if my gunner can handle AA and help spot enemies.

Zekeen · 2012-05-26, 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

A Dedicated Driver with a dedicated gunner is waaaay more effective in battle than a pilot controlled gun. armor bonus is hardly necessary.

That's true, but two solo manned tanks easily outgun a single basic tank with designated slots. There needs to be some bonus for having to sacrifice manpower, otherwise it's just silly. That's why I settled at 150%, not 200%, or 250%, just 150%. You lose 50% effectiveness, but it's the coordination that makes it up.

Xyntech · 2012-05-26, 08:11 PM

The devs are already considering a dedicated gunner slot, which would hand the drivers gun over to the gunner so that both can focus on their role.

Now obviously this wouldn't work as easily with the Magrider, since it's main gun is fixed forwards. It would need to have it's forward fixed main gun removed and placed as a turret on top.

Now if they already need to modify the Magrider that much, I don't see why they couldn't also increase the main cannon damage (for the Magrider along with the other two MBT's), perhaps along with giving the armor a small buff.

Visual distinction between these dedicated gunner variants and the normal driver gunned MBT's would certainly be good, but I don't think they should be a new larger tank. Tanks in PS2 are actually already larger than they were in the original Planetside, and I think it would be over the top to make them even larger.

But I do support the idea of dedicated driver/gunner variants. Whether they actually do need more firepower or armor is a question of balance, which would need some more proper play testing. A lot would depend on whether those dedicated gunner variants also had room for a third occupant to control the secondary turret (providing things like AA defense).

Tallon · 2012-05-27, 12:20 PM

Perhaps give the driver the option to control the main turret only when they are stopped (they have to get out of the driver's seat and into the gunner's) and require a gunner(or two if you count AI/AA top mount) to have the tank running at full capacity.

seems pretty straight forward to me, but then I've never played Planetside.

as for something to do...there are infantry and you are in a 2+ tonne tank *death cries long forgotten rise to prominence*...go Goldeneye64 on their ***es

...or give the pilot a forward arc anti-infantry weapon :P

Jinxsey · 2012-05-27, 10:02 PM

The driver I think needs to be taking a more active role, just driving around isn't realy enough in shooter games anymore. The BF route of driver-gunner and secondary gunner works smoothly without reducing the role a dedicated gunner plays, ultimately one player is moving the vehicle through terrain and operating it's primary weapon and it's not a tricky job to multi-task. Having done it myself rather extensively in BF2142 and BF3. But the secondary slot does need to become more important.

Instead of creating an arms race with bigger tanks and more people, I'd prefer to see more utility built in to the gunner slot. If the gunner was given a secondary weapon that performed a function which assisted the primary weapon directly, such as the option to load Illumination rounds, or special ammo that stuck trackers to targeted units that assited weapons locks etc.

The point is, rather than going bigger and badder, I'd go sideways. Synergy with other game eliments. If my gunner operates a "secondary" (No, I don't mean small) weapon system, but also controls vehicle defensive measures like anti-missile flares, smoke launchers or any other fancy gadget that can support the troops accompanying the tank it will give a force multiplicative incentive to mount multiple persons in a tank without just doing a "BFR".

Going bigger, and requiring more people is an option that provides a barrier to entry not depth and complexity. (I know, ironic given the game we're talking about, but bear with me)

Single person tanks ultimately suffer because they lack the teamworth aesthetic, but adding specialisation takes the toys from players hands, which is frustrating. Instead, find ways to make multi-seat vehicles work without creating an arms race, and without removing the ability for everyone inside that vehicle (which is an MBT, anyone climbing inside would be reasonable in the expectation that they will be playing an active role in hostilities, by which I mean shooting stuff) to fire a weapon in addition to other duties. There are plenty of ways to do this, you'll never see a half decent BF3 vehicle without atleast a crew of 2 (better teams 3) precicely because the secondary armament is vital to the survivability of the tank as a whole, and while arguably the third slot is too passive (tagging stuff with the laser gets old fast, despite it's impressive utility) it's a step towards the kind of depth and complexity in a combigned arms game that I think we should have more of.

To sum up, the driver keeps his main armament, but the gunner get's more gadgets, and the tank gets the ability to synergise with other units. Spotting lasers, smoke launchers to cover advancing infantry etc. Hell you could even put in a mini-game. Imagine if the gunner could boost the reload time on the driver's main weapon by performing a reload mini-game similar to the one from gears of war? If that ability was present only if the tank had a gunner manning a secondary weapon, and only if that gunner had certed into "vehicle gunner" I think that would go a long way to incentivising teamwork, without frustrating anyone.

Hell it might even mean the crew had to communicate with one another to time it right!

Talek Krell · 2012-05-30, 06:42 PM

The OP is roughly how I would expect this to work. Probably not an entirely new chassis model, but identifiably different with stronger weapon(s) and/or armor.

Zekeen · 2012-05-30, 09:46 PM

Originally Posted by Talek Krell

The OP is roughly how I would expect this to work. Probably not an entirely new chassis model, but identifiably different with stronger weapon(s) and/or armor.

Right, just slightly different to differentiate between designated and non, as well as bring back some classic designs a bit.

Higby's interview revealed a LOT about the tank system. Seems that the secondary gunner has a LOT of firepower, going as far to get TOW missiles to essentially DOUBLE the firepower. None the less, I stand by my mod idea, for the fact that it still remains in balance.

Normal MBT - 2 person, more variety, 100% armor, 200% attack potential.

Designated MBT Chassis - 2 person, less variety (cannon + chain gun), 150%. 150% attack potential

The end result is about the same, but gives distinct separate advantages.

Jinxsey · 2012-05-31, 12:11 AM

So it's a BFR?

Zekeen · 2012-05-31, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by Jinxsey

So it's a BFR?

Is it a giant shielded beast with several times the firepower and armor of a tank on top of the shield with potential flying capacity or additional MRLS rocket system?

No, it's a tank with 50% more armor, 50% more powerful gun, and no secondary capacity like anti air or TOW missiles.

In the end, it still matches a basic tank in terms of power, just works differently. I don't see how you could relate it to a BFR.

Jinxsey · 2012-05-31, 12:35 AM

I mean, does it meaningfuly add to the gameplay? I'm umming and ahhing. I like new toys but I think the MBTs should be the top end, going bigger to me just seems to de-value the tanks, and I've had that once already.